Subject: Re: [xsl] return of the XSL FAQ From: "Graydon graydon@xxxxxxxxx" <xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 18:40:40 -0000 |
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 05:08:28PM -0000, Liam R. E. Quin liam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx scripsit: > I'll wait a few more days to give others a chance to comment > (especially Dave himself!). But i'm leaning towards keeping the > existing 1.0/2.0 FAQ unchanged (except e.g. if there are broken links > etc) and starting a new one that incorporates XSLT 3 and current work > and implementations. I'd prefer that outcome. There's that line about the past is another country, and they do things differently there; I think that's a distinction well worth maintaining about XSLT 1 as distinct from current practise. XSLT 2 and especially 3 are substantially more capable languages; I would want to be making that clear from the outset, in "Only use 1 if you're actively compelled" terms. -- Graydon Saunders | graydonish@xxxxxxxxx ^fs oferiode, pisses swa mfg. -- Deor ("That passed, so may this.")
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] return of the XSL FAQ, Michael Müller-Hille | Thread | [xsl] XSLT 4: xsl:template/@select, Graydon graydon@xxxx |
Re: [xsl] return of the XSL FAQ, Debbie Lapeyre dalap | Date | Re: [xsl] XSLT 4: xsl:template/@sel, Graydon graydon@xxxx |
Month |